The order allows only a preparer to request more than the $100 “presumptive maximum allowable fee” by filing a motion and affidavit to justify the request. The affidavit must also include a statement that the debtor has reviewed the motion.

A hearing “shall” be scheduled unless the court determines otherwise.

All pro se debtors will get a copy of the order when they file their petitions. This tips them off that if they’ve paid a preparer more than $100, the court thinks that’s too much.

In capping the fee at $100, the court’s six judges explained that they:

have relied upon their collective experience concerning fees actually charged by petition preparers in this district, as well as the limited nature of the services that bankruptcy petition preparers may perform under Section 110 of the Bankruptcy Code and state law limitations on the unauthorized practice of law.

A preparer who charges more than the services are worth will be ordered to surrender the excess fee.

DETROIT (AP) — A spokesman for Detroit Public Schools financial manager says Robert Bobb expects to move forward with a plan to sell or lease 42 school buildings beginning in June.

Steve Wasko said Wednesday that Bobb will comply with a judge’s order to consult with the district’s elected school board before implementing his plan.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Wendy Baxter last week ruled to temporarily stop Bobb from making academic plans without consulting the school board. Baxter on Wednesday scheduled hearings in the school board’s lawsuit against Bobb for early June.

The board claims Bobb is overstepping his authority by making academic changes.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox this week is expected to appeal Baxter’s temporary injunction to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

DETROIT (AP) — A city of Detroit lawyer says ex-councilwoman Monica Conyers is refusing to cooperate in a lawsuit that accuses her of retaliating against a man who wanted to recall her from office in 2009.

A city attorney, Grant Ha, wants to stop representing Conyers because she won’t participate in the litigation. A hearing in federal court is set for May 13.

Conyers is accused of pressuring Mariners Inn to fire Theodis Collins when she learned he was leading a recall effort. The substance-abuse center gets grants from Detroit. He lost his job.

Conyers is off the city council and headed to prison for corruption by July 1. The city has been representing her because the alleged events occurred when she was in office.

DETROIT (AP) — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm says she would be "an unusual candidate" for the U.S. Supreme Court but is honored to be considered.

Granholm told reporters Wednesday after speaking at a Detroit conference that she’s unusual for the high court because she has no judicial experience. She is among about 10 people President Barack Obama is considering to replace longtime Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring this summer.

Granholm said it’s the president’s process and decision, but, "it’s certainly an honor to be on the list."

Granholm, who is term-limited and leaves office in December, also was considered last year during the vetting process to replace Justice David Souter. Obama ended up choosing federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Snyder is the only one so far to air any ads, but all five candidates have been campaigning hard in advance of the Aug. 3 primary election. Most spoke at recent tea party events and are trying to appeal to the GOP base with a message of lower taxes and smaller government.

The debate will give the GOP candidates a chance to emphasize their differences and possibly get in some political jabs. They also might voice criticism of their Democratic counterparts, Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, House Speaker Andy Dillon and state Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith.

In a recent EPIC-MRA poll, Hoekstra was backed by 27 percent of the 400 likely Republican voters surveyed. Cox was backed by 21 percent, followed by Snyder at 15 percent, Bouchard at 13 percent and George at 3 percent. About 3 percent said they would vote for someone else and 18 percent were undecided.

When likely voters were given brief descriptions of the Republican candidates, Hoekstra had 26 percent, followed by Cox and Snyder at 21 percent each. Bouchard was at 15 percent while George was at 6 percent.

The poll was conducted March 28-31 for the Detroit Free Press and TV stations WXYZ in Southfield, WOOD in Grand Rapids, WILX in Lansing and WJRT in Flint. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Workers’ compensation attorneys have an opportunity to bring their expertise to a direct statewide level.

The Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Qualifications Advisory Committee (QAC) is accepting applications through May 14 for a spot on the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission.

Applicants must be a member in good standing of the State Bar of Michigan and have five years of experience as an attorney in the field of workers’ compensation or pass a written examination. A written exam will be given on May 21, 2010 in the Lansing area.

The Michigan Supreme Court has let stand the Attorney Discipline Board’s decision to not discipline Sheldon Miller for alleged violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct based on conduct occurring in 1984 and 1985.

During that time, Miller represented a number of plaintiffs who were current and former Automobile Club of Michigan (AAA) employees. They claimed AAA improperly changed their sales commission system. Miller, while representing a large group of these plaintiffs, took on four additional clients who had wrongful discharge and commission claims against AAA.

An Attorney Grievance Commission hearing panel determined that Miller violated MRPC 1.4(b) by not bringing the new clients up to date on developments in the larger group litigation.

Specifically, although acting with good faith and arguably with the clients’ best interests in mind, Respondent had the obligation of explaining in detail the ramifications of participating in a “large group” action versus initiating their actions independent of the group. In addition, Respondent had the obligation to advise his clients, prior to joining them in the group action, of the adverse ruling of Judge Hausner immediately prior to joining the group. By failing to provide that information, the new clients were deprived of the opportunity to file an independent action which likely would have been assigned to a different Judge where a different ruling on the dismissed legal issues might have occurred.

for the simple and inescapable reason that MRPC 1.4(a) and, indeed, the entire Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, were not adopted by the Supreme Court until Oct. 1, 1988.

Respondent has presented a simple argument on review: respondent cannot be disciplined for violating MRPC 1.4(b) for conduct which occurred prior to 1988 because MRPC 1.4(b) did not exist when the conduct occurred.

Moreover, unlike other provisions in the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted in 1988 which are substantially similar to the corresponding provisions of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, MRPC 1.4(b) did not have a counterpart in the pre-1988 Code dealing specifically with a duty to provide adequate communication to a client.

It is argued that although an explicit duty of adequate communication with a client was not present in the pre-1988 Code of Professional Responsibility, such a duty was considered to be an element of a lawyer’s duty to represent a client competently under Canon 6 and the duty to represent a client zealously under Canon 7 of the Code.

However, this argument is unavailing in this case because violations under those Canons were not charged.

The Grievance Administrator appealed. On a 3-3 vote, with Justice Robert Young, a former AAA employee himself, not participating, the MSC declined to review the ADB’s decision.

Justice Maura Corrigan, joined by Justice Stephen Markman, dissented from the majority vote. She, however, had some comments, and she minced no words:

Despite the three-member panel’s unanimous determination that Miller’s conduct warrants disciplinary action and the Grievance Administrator’s persuasive argument that Miller committed serious misconduct, this Court cannot muster a majority in favor of reviewing the ADB’s decision to vacate the panel’s order of reprimand.

In so doing, this Court allows Miller’s major ethical failures to escape punishment. Because serious misconduct apparently occurred, I would grant the applications for leave to appeal. …

This Court does complainants, the hearing panel, and the public a major disservice by failing to review this matter further and allowing Miller to escape without any sanction.

The record reveals that Miller failed to inform the complainants of the earlier adverse ruling because he believed it was not important to do so. Miller unquestionably prioritized the seven percent commission claim over the wrongful discharge claim. Complainants maintain that Miller knew that they were more concerned about pursuing their wrongful discharge claims. Complainants believed for years that Miller was pursuing their wrongful discharge claims when those claims had been stayed.

Miller gave inconsistent answers in response to his clients’ repeated requests for information about the lawsuit. Indeed, Miller apparently forgot that the lawsuit ever included wrongful discharge claims. After listening to hours of testimony and posing questions to the witnesses, the hearing panel concluded that Miller’s conduct warranted a reprimand.

The ADB’s decision to vacate the panel’s order of reprimand is highly questionable because an attorney’s duty to communicate with clients clearly existed before MRPC 1.4(b) was enacted in 1988. In dismissing on this ground, the ADB erroneously relied on criminal procedure standards instead of notice standards governing civil cases.

Moreover, the record warrants this Court’s plenary consideration of the Grievance Administrator’s allegations that Miller’s post-1988 conduct violated MRPC 1.4(b) and additional provisions of the Michigan Rules of Professional Responsibility.

The Michigan Supreme Court has given parties in In re Investigative Subpoenas, Grand Traverse County Prosecutor v. Meijer Inc. and Dickinson Wright Employees 35 days to file brief amicus curiae.

The court directed the parties to address the effect, if there is any, of the U.S. Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, court overturned the 20-year-old Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U.S. 652 (1990). It also threw a wrench into to a case in Northwest Michigan, Grand Traverse Prosecutor v. Meijer Inc.

In that case, Grand Traverse Prosecutor Alan Schneider got the go-ahead in November to pursue a felony investigation of the campaign finance violations, when the Michigan Court of Appeals stated that a lower court had improperly dismissed an action by Schneider to compel Meijer Inc. and Dickinson Wright to comply with investigative subpoenas related to violations of MCL 169.254, which prohibits corporations from making election campaign contributions.

The MiLW Website

The MiLW Daily Alert

Get the latest Michigan legal news and information delivered to your email inbox, courtesy of Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Sign up for the MiLW Daily Alert. Its free and informative. Click here for more information.